Are we humans simply remodelled apes? Chimps with a tweak? Is the difference between our genomes so minuscule it justifies the argument that our cognition and behaviour must also differ from chimps by barely a whisker? If “chimps are us” should we grant them human rights? Or is this one of the biggest fallacies in the study of evolution? NOT A CHIMP argues that these similarities have been grossly over-exaggerated - we should keep chimps at arm’s length. Are humans cognitively unique after all?

NOT A CHIMP

Click on the cover to link to OUP's e-catalogue then turn to the biology section.

Interview Podcast with George Miller

Click on the pic to link to the NOT A CHIMP podcast on Blackwell's Website

Preface to "Not A Chimp: The Hunt For The Genes That Make Us Human"

In many ways, this book is born out of frustration for a professional career in popular science television where ideas about comparative primate cognition, and the similarities and differences between us and our primate relatives, have continually circled me but constantly evaded my grasp in terms of the opportunity to transform them into science documentary. On the plus side, keeping a watching brief for over a quarter of a century on subjects like comparative animal cognition and evolution allows you to watch a great deal of water flow under the bridge. Fashions come and fashions go - specifically, perspectives on the similarity - or otherwise - of human and ape minds.

I remember the first Horizon science documentary about the chimpanzee Washoe, the great ape communicator, using American Sign Language to bridge the species barrier. And, later, Kanzi the bonobo jabbing his lexicon. These were the apes, as Sue Savage-Rumbaugh has put it, that were "on the brink of the human mind".

I remember when the pre-print of Machiavellian Intelligence, by Andrew Whiten and Dick Byrne, plopped onto the doormat of the BBC Antenna science series office in 1988. Suddenly primatology had become a great deal more exciting. Could primates, and especially higher primates like chimpanzees, really be as full of guile, as dastardly, as cunning, and as manipulative as the eponymous Florentine politician? Could they really reach deep into the minds of other individuals to see what they believed and what they wanted, and turn that information into deception?

I remember discussing primate cognition with a young Danny Povinelli, as we sat finger-feeding ourselves shrimp gumbo and new potatoes out of plastic Tupperware containers in a Lafayette restaurant surrounded by an alligator-infested moat, before returning to his kingdom - the New Iberia Research Centre - where the University of Louisiana had lured him back to his native deep South by turning a chimpanzee breeding centre for medical laboratory fodder into a primate cognition laboratory with one of the largest groups of captive chimpanzees in the country. He looked like a kid who had just been thrown the keys to the tuck shop.

In those days Povinelli shared the zeitgeist - spread by Whiten's and Byrne's work, and started by Nick Humphrey and Alison Jolly before them - that, since the most exacting and potentially treacherous environment faced by chimpanzees and other primates was not physical, but the social environment of their peers, they had evolved a form of social cognition very much like our own, in order to deal with it. This was further elaborated into a full-blown "social brain" hypothesis by Robin Dunbar, who related brain neocortex size to social group size throughout the primates and up to man. Povinelli's early work reflects this optimism for the mental life of apes, but both ape-language and ape-cognition research was subjected to a cold douche of searching criticism during the 1990s, and misgivings set in regarding the effectiveness of the experiments that had been constructed to guage ape cognition. Now the worm has turned again, with a number of research groups emerging with bolder and bolder claims for the Machiavellian machinations of primate minds, only to be powerfully countered by the curmudgeonly skepticism, chiefly by Povinelli, that these researchers are merely projecting their mental life onto that of their subjects; that, rather in the frustrating manner of Zeno's arrow that could never quite reach its target because it continually halved its distance to it, no experiment constructed thus far can actually get inside the mind of a chimp and show us exactly what it does and doesn't know, or how much, about the minds of others or the way the physical world works. One influential part of the world of comparative animal cognition talks of a continuum between ape and human minds and shrinks the cognitive distance between us and chimps to almost negligible proportions, while another returns us to the unfashionable idea that human cognition is unique, among the primates, after all.

When I began writing this book the working title was "The 1.6% that makes us human". My aim had always been to scrutinize the impression put about in the popular science media that humans and chimps differ by a mere 1.6% in our genetic code - or even less - and that it therefore makes complete sense that this minuscule genetic difference translates into equally small differences in cognition and behaviour between apes and man. However, contemporary genome science and technology, over the last few years, have dramatically advanced the power and resolution with which scientists can investigate genomes, eclipsing the earlier days of genomic investigation that gave rise to the "1.6% mantra".

As with comparative cognitive studies, conclusions on chimp-human similarity and difference in genome research depend crucially on perspective. To look at the complete set of human chromosomes, side by side with chimpanzee chromosomes, at the level of resolution of a powerful light microscope, for instance, is to be overwhelmed by the similarity between them. Overwhelmed with a sense of how close our kinship is with the other great apes. True, our chromosome 2 is a combination of two chimp chromosomes - giving humans a complement of 23 chromosome pairs to 24 in chimps, gorillas and orang-utans - but even here you can see exactly where the two chimp chromosomes have fused to produce one. The banding patterns you visualize by staining the chromosomes match up with astonishing similarity - and that banding similarity extends to many of the other chromosomes in the two genomes. However, look at a recent map of the chromosomes of chimps and humans, aligned side by side, produced by researchers who have mapped all inversions - end-on-end flips of large chunks of DNA - and the chromosomes are all but blotted out by a blizzard of red lines denoting inverted sequence. Now you become overwhelmed by how much structural change has occurred between the two genomes in just 6 million years. True, not all inversions result in changes in the working of genes - but many do - and inversions might even have been responsible for the initial divergence of chimp ancestor from human ancestor.

The extent to which you estimate the difference between chimp and human genomes depends entirely on where you look and how deeply. Modern genomics technology has led us deep into the mine that is the genome and has uncovered an extraordinary range of genetic mechanisms, many of which have one thing in common. They operate to promote variability - they amplify differences between individuals in one species. We now know, for instance, that each human is less genetically identical to anyone else than we thought only three years ago. When we compare human genomes to chimpanzee genomes these mechanisms magnify genetic distance still further. I have tried, in this book, to follow in the footsteps of these genome scientists as they dig deeper and deeper into the "Aladdin's Cave" of the genome. At times the going gets difficult. Scientists, like any explorers, are prone to taking wrong turnings, getting trapped in thickets, and covering hard ground, before breaking through into new insights. I hope that those of you who recoil from genetics with all the visceral horror with which many regard the sport of pot-holing will steel yourselves and follow me as far as I have dared to go into Aladdin's Cave. For only then will you see the riches within and begin to appreciate, as I have, just how limited popular accounts of human-chimpanzee genetic difference really are. Let me try and persuade you that this is a journey, if a little arduous at times, that is well worth taking.

There are a number of scientists around the world who have the breadth and the vision to have begun the task of rolling genetics, comparative animal cognition, and neuroscience into a comprehensive new approach to the study of human nature and this is part, at least, of their story. They strive to describe the nature of humans in terms of the extent to which we are genuinely different to chimpanzees and the other great apes. Somehow, over 6 million years, we humans evolved from something that probably resembled a chimpanzee (though we cannot yet be entirely sure) and the answer to our evolution has to lie in a growing number of structural changes in our genome, versus that of the chimpanzee, that have led to the evolution of a large number of genes that have, effectively, re-designed our brains and led to our advanced and peculiar human cognition.

If you don't believe me, hand this book to your nearest friendly chimpanzee and see what he makes of it!

Friday, 2 April 2010

In my chapter LESS IS MORE I write at length about the work of Ajit Varki and his group at UC San Diego on the evolution of what they see as the highly aberrant human immune system - compared, at least, with the other great apes and primates. The idea is that the human immune system has been primed to be over-reactive to invading foreign proteins - antigens encountered from a host of new or rapidly evolving parasites and micro-organisms. Here they expand on the work I have already reported by looking further at the role of Siglec-5 immuno-globulins on the cell surface of human T and B cells. Today, we see this over-reactivity in a range of debilitating auto-immune diseases we do not share with chimps. Fascinating stuff! Here's the conclusion of their abstract - which will make sense if you've read the book!!

"Finally, we show a relative increase in activation markers and cytokine production in human lymphocytes in response to uridine-rich (viral-like) ssRNA. Thus, humans manifest a generalized lymphocyte over-reactivity relative to chimpanzees, a finding that is correlated with decreased levels of inhibitory sialic acid-recognizing Ig-superfamily lectins (Siglecs; particularly Siglec-5) on human T and B cells. Furthermore, Siglec-5 levels are upregulated by activation in chimpanzee but not human lymphocytes, and human T cell reactivity can be downmodulated by forced expression of Siglec-5. Thus, a key difference in the immune reactivity of chimp and human lymphocytes appears to be related to the differential expression of Siglec-5. Taken together, these data may help explain human propensities for diseases associated with excessive activation of the adaptive immune system."

Here's a fascinating piece in Physorg, building on earlier conjectures by Paul Crutzen, that we humans have wrought such wholesale changes to the face of the earth and its climate that we have entered a new geological age they call the Anthropocene. As the article explains:

Zalasiewicz, Williams, Steffen and Crutzen contend that recent human activity, including stunning population growth, sprawling megacities and increased use of fossil fuels, have changed the planet to such an extent that we are entering what they call the Anthropocene (New Man) Epoch.

First proposed by Crutzen more than a decade ago, the term Anthropocene has provoked controversy. However, as more potential consequences of human activity — such as global climate change and sharp increases in plant and animal extinctions — have emerged, Crutzen’s term has gained support. Currently, the worldwide geological community is formally considering whether the Anthropocene should join the Jurassic, Cambrian and other more familiar units on the Geological Time Scale.

In this third NPR piece Goodenough teams up with Terrence Deacon and the key comparison, again, is with the relaxation of genetic constraints mitigating against free-wheeling birdsong and in favour of the maintenance of stereotypy.

Here's the second linked NPR blog article, again written by Ursula Goodenough but heavily citing Terrence Deacon's take on the matter. It's another take on the trajectory I have suggested in my chapter THE APE THAT DOMESTICATED ITSELF. Here the comparison is between domesticated (selectively bred) Bengalese finches, which have a highly unconstrained song, and wild Bengalese finches where song appears more stereotyped. The idea is that domestication has lifted constraints in bird-song and may have lifted similar constraints on human proto-language and language. Interesting, if arguable, but it highlights once again the value of cross-species comparison even when we are trying to investigate traits we associate, in their modern form, uniquely with humans.

This is one of three linked blog articles from America's National Public Radio, by biologist Ursula Goodenough. The others, posted below this are by Terry Deacon and Deacon + Goodenough. In this first piece Goodenough places great emphasis on the marvellous work being done by Kathy Pollack on HARs - highly accelerated regions of DNA in what were formerly supposed to be junk areas of the genome. These HARs produce RNAs that are involved in gene regulation and look responsible for normal neuron migration in the developing brain and in the build of the flexible wrist - allowing more manual dexterity in humans.

Here's a New York Times article by Nick Wade that I should have posted ages ago. Proof that recent ideas that, contrary to received wisdom, human evolution has recently speeded up, not slowed down or stopped over the last 40,000 years, are reaching mainstream.

In the penultimate chapter of NOT A CHIMP I speculate about the role of variants in genes for dopamine, vasopressin receptor, serotonin transport and MAO-A, in underpinning an adaptive range of temperamental phenotypes in human populations, similar to the hyper-variability in these genes and in temperament observed in rhesus macaques. Here researchers look at variants of the dopamine transporter gene and find that one variant is much more protective than others against the likelihood of illegal transgressions and risky behaviour during adolescence and early adulthood. Here's the abstract (the journal is PLoS One which means you can freely access the whole paper):

This study tests the specific hypothesis that the 9R/9R genotype in the VNTR of the dopamine transporter gene (DAT1) exerts a general protective effect against a spectrum of risky behaviors in comparison to the 10R/9R and 10R/10R genotypes, drawing on three-time repeated measures of risky behaviors in adolescence and young adulthood on about 822 non-Hispanic white males from the Add Health study. Our data have established two empirical findings. The first is a protective main effect in the DAT1 gene against risky behaviors. The second finding is that the protective effect varies over age, with the effect prominent at ages when a behavior is illegal and the effect largely vanished at ages when the behavior becomes legal or more socially tolerated. Both the protective main effect and the gene-lifecourse interaction effect are replicated across a spectrum of most common risky behaviors: delinquency, variety of sexual partners, binge drinking, drinking quantity, smoking quantity, smoking frequency, marijuana use, cocaine use, other illegal drug use, and seatbelt non-wearing. We also compared individuals with the protective genotype and individuals without it in terms of age, physical maturity, verbal IQ, GPA, received popularity, sent popularity, church attendance, two biological parents, and parental education. These comparisons indicate that the protective effect of DAT1*9R/9R cannot be explained away by these background characteristics. Our work demonstrates how legal/social contexts can enhance or reduce a genetic effect on risky behaviors.

Welcome to NOT A CHIMP!

It's estimated that there are 225 chimpanzees kept as pets in American homes - often with catastrophic, unforeseen results. In February, 2009, Travis, a 14 year old chimp, who lived with a Stamford, CT woman, attacked and mauled her best friend, went on the rampage, cornered police in their patrol car and was eventually shot dead. Welcome to the bizarre world of human-chimp relationships! So, are chimps so like us they can slip comfortably into our domestic bliss, or are they wild animals and should be respected as such? This blog and the book, "Not A Chimp" to which it is dedicated, fillets the latest research from genetics, cognition and neuroscience to inform this debate and help you decide. I'll be posting commentary and links to a variety of hot-off-the-press articles and scientific papers published since the book was written and links to a variety of web-sites you might like to visit to explore human-chimpanzee world a little further!

"NOT A CHIMP" GOES INTO PAPERBACK!

NOT A CHIMP was published in the UK in hard-back in June 2009.Later, in September 2009, it was also launched in the USA and Canada. Now, today, 25th May, 2010 sees its publication in the UK in paperback - with the usual world-wide distribution soon to follow.

Meet The Author

Click on me to link to a 3 minute video about the book.

About Me

I have spent most of my professional life inside the science documentary television industry, with evolutionary biology a subject I have visited many times. Until 1992 I was a senior producer and director for BBC Television, where I contributed many films to the BBC’s long-running flagship science series ‘Horizon’ (including two landmark programmes presented by Richard Dawkins, “Nice Guys Finish First” and “The Blind Watchmaker”). My first book, “Not a Chimp” ('A provocative book that should be read by anyone interested in the debate about similarities and differences between humans and chimpanzees', Dan Agin, Huffington Post) was published by Oxford University Press in 2009. My second book, “Body By Darwin”, to which this blog is dedicated, will be published by University of Chicago Press in November, 2015.